Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Third Sector: Public and Private, its time you met Iwi

It is natural to talk about
society consisting of two sectors:public and private. This derives from the notion that the government and
those empowered by the government to carry out a public function are the
‘public sector’ while functions not performed by the public sector are by
default the ‘private sector’.

My view is that New Zealand
society consists of three sectors: public, iwi and private.

Iwi are most often categorised as
occupying ‘private sector’ roles and this is probably the result of the
commodification of the treaty settlement process.By reducing treaty settlements to commercial
transactions, little work was done toward rectifying the cultural and social
injustices suffered by Maori subsequent to signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi. [see
Maria Bargh “Maori Development and Neoliberalism” in Maria Bargh (ed) Resistance: An indigenous response to
Neoliberalism (Huia Press, Wellington, 2007)].

Before I discuss the three
sectors, it is worthwhile outlining some of the underlying issues that prevent
iwi as a third sector being acknowledged or even accepted by the wider NZ
community.

There will be some reading this
who will argue that categorising Iwi as a separate sector in society is racial
favouritism promoting separatism and to be honest that is the kind of comment
I’d expect from those motivated by those who subscribe to libertarianism or
other such ideologies that place their own self-interests at the centre of any debate
surrounding indigenous rights and in particular, in the case of New Zealand, Te
Tiriti o Waitangi. I don’t make that comment lightly either. Those who advocate
the ‘one law for all’ (OLFA) have false understandings about what is required
of equality. Yes, we can have a legal system that applies to all within New
Zealand’s territories, and in fact that is the system we have. The specific
details of certain laws require amending for sure, to meet our treaty
obligations, international obligations and in response to the needs of society.
But to imply that Maori are above the law or not subject to the same law is not
only misleading but is absolute nonsense created by scare mongering of the
OLFA’s. If Maori were above the law and had significantly more advantages than
every other New Zealander then ask yourself this: why are Maori
disproportionately represented (in the negative) in all statistics relating to
the socio-economic wellbeing of NZ citizens? Because the advantages espoused by
the OLFA’s are a myth.

The OLFA argument is premised on
the idea of equality. But equality does not mean that everyone has the ‘same’.
To treat it as such is in effect to deny equality. We are not simply cutting a
pie and giving everyone the same amount, and even if you take that logic we
might get the same amount of the pie, but we get different pieces. Equality is
more complex than the view proposed by the OLFA’s.

PIE EXAMPLE: Alf and Bill

Alf is an athlete of solid build
and requires significant amounts of food to replace the energy lost during his
game. Bill is in IT and leads a sedentary lifestyle, and is conscious about
gaining weight due to his lack of exercise. Prima facie, it seems fair to give
each of them half the pie.But by doing
this, Alf does not get the replacement energy needed and Bill packs on those
extra calories. So to balance this out, it makes more sense to factor in those
arbitrary considerations. Therefore, it is fairer to give Alf 2/3 of the pie and
Bill 1/3 so that they both benefit from their share in the pie for their own
reasons.

So to translate this example into
the context of this post, while it appears that Maori get more through perhaps
targeted admission schemes at tertiary institutions or the Maori electorate
voting, this does not mean that the rights of the general public are reduced in
anyway, only that sometimes some groups will require more to meet their needs
than other groups. OLFA’s suggest that these provisions for different rights
are discriminatory and amount to racial favouritism and therefore promote
racially based inequalities. This is not true. A good explanation of this is
found in the New Zealand Bill of Rights book by Rishworth et al:

Discrimination and
equality are terms that are often used to describe the opposite conclusions
that may be reached in analysing government action. Distinctions thought
wrongful are said to be discriminatory, while those considered appropriate are
said to respect equality. This has led some to suppose that freedom from
discrimination and equality are the same thing. But a world without
discrimination is not necessarily a world of equality (see Rishworth et al The New
Zealand Bill of Rights. (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2003) at 368)

This statement in effect shows
that while the OLFA’s view is one law for all, and if successful, it might
remove discrimination, but it will not achieve the objective of equality that
the rationale behind the argument is premised on.

While mainstream media are busy
reporting that Maori get this, that and the next thing, what isn’t reported or at
least properly acknowledged is that Maori live within a system that favours
non-Maori culture: the court system, the economy, the political system were all
constructed and implemented in ways that benefited the colonial settlers. It
is not reported that Maori had their own way of organising themselves legally,
economically and politically prior to signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And when it
is, the self-interested response is that we cannot change what has happened in
the past, its time to move on.

But what is moving on? Dispensing
with the past since we can’t change it? For Maori to dispense with the past is
to dispense of their history, culture, practices and norms. The OLFA essentially
advocates for Maori to dispense with their sense of identity and belonging to
their culture to avoid racial favouritism in law.This is hardly equal. It shifts from having
areas in law to protect minority interests to having law that reflects only the
majority interests.

Now, returning to my point about
the three sectors. Iwi (as a grouping) developed in response to colonialism as
it gave Maori a stronger voice against the might of the colonial empire. It is
evidenced through the implementation of the Waitangi Tribunal and various other
forms of legislation and general knowledge within the public domain that the
Crown recognises Iwi as its own entity. However, it is incorrectly categorised
as a ‘private sector’ entity, which does little more than to corporatise
Maori culture in line with the commodification of the treaty settlement process. So
if iwi are not private sector then are they public sector? Again, no. If iwi
were categorised as public sector agents then it makes no sense for them to be
in partnership with the Crown, since they are constrained by Parliamentary
sovereignty, iwi would not be a partner but a department or a ministry subject
to incumbent governments. However, iwi fulfil an admixture of public like and
private functions, insofar as developing businesses and investing (private
sector work) and general community work through Marae and other forums (public
sector).

My suggestion is that in effect
Iwi occupy their own sector that does not sit within either of the formally
recognised sectors. Therefore, NZ consists of three sectors: Public, Iwi and
Private.

However, this position will only
gain traction if iwi recognise their unique role and look beyond treaty
settlements as commercial transactions and start seeking rectification for past
social and cultural injustices. Once iwi show that they are an active, engaged
political, social and economic force, then these preconceived notions of Te Ao
Maori as obsolete by OLFA’s can be abandoned. It is up to all iwi to lead the
way and take Maori forward (beyond land settlements and proprietary interests)
and forging a future for Maori that cannot be deprecated by OLFA’s.

This may involve the convergence
of the Iwi Leaders Group and the New Zealand Maori Council, or it may call for
a democratically elected body of iwi representatives. But this is a discussion
for another day.

Translate

About Me

The views expressed are my personal views. Some views will be well researched while others will be reactionary. Where appropriate I will provide references to material. Prone to inconsistencies over time. Feel free to hit me up about it.